Innovative models of healthcare delivery: an umbrella review of reviews

New models of health and social care for people in later life: mapping of innovation in services in two regions of the United Kingdom using a mixed method approach

BACKGROUND

Innovation for reforming health and social care is high on the policy agenda in the United Kingdom in response to the growing needs of an ageing population. However, information about new innovations of care being implemented is sparse.

METHODS

We mapped innovations for people in later life in two regions, North East England and South East Scotland. Data collection included discussions with stakeholders (n = 51), semi-structured interviews (n = 14) and website searches that focused on technology, evaluation and health inequalities. We analysed qualitative data using framework and thematic analyses. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

One hundred eleven innovations were identified across the two regions. Interviewees reported a wide range of technologies that had been rapidly introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and many remained in use. Digital exclusion of certain groups of older people was an ongoing concern. Innovations fell into two groups; system-level ones that aimed to alleviate systems pressures such as preventing hospital (re)admissions, and patient-level ones which sought to enhance health and wellbeing directly. Interviewees were aware of the importance of health inequalities but lacked data to monitor the impact of innovations on these, and evaluation was challenging due to lack of time, training, and support. Quantitative findings revealed that two thirds of innovations (n = 74, 67%) primarily focused on the system level, whilst a third (n = 37, 33%) primarily focused on the patient-level. Overall, over half (n = 65, 59%) of innovations involved technologies although relatively few (n = 12, 11%) utilised advanced technologies. Very few (n = 16, 14%) focused on reducing health inequalities, and only a minority of innovations (n = 43, 39%) had undergone evaluation (most of which were conducted by the service providers themselves).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a wide range of innovative care services being developed for people in later life, yet alignment with key policy priorities, such as addressing health inequalities, was limited. There was a strong focus on technology, with little consideration for the potential to widen the health inequality gap. The absence of robust evaluation was also a concern as most innovations were implemented without support to monitor effectiveness and/or without plans for sustainability and spread.

Unlocking potential: a qualitative exploration guiding the implementation and evaluation of professional role substitution models in healthcare

BACKGROUND

As role substitution models gain prominence in healthcare, understanding the factors shaping their effectiveness is paramount. This study aimed to investigate factors that impact the implementation and performance evaluation of professional role substitution models in healthcare, with a focus on understanding the variables that determine their success or failure in adoption, execution, continuity, and outcomes.

METHODS

The exploratory qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with key opinion leaders, decision makers, facilitators, recipients, and frontline implementers, who had influence and involvement in the implementation of professional role substitution models. Data analysis was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

Between November 2022 and April 2023, 39 stakeholders were interviewed. Factors influencing implementation and evaluation of allied health professional role substitution models of care aligned with the five core CFIR domains (innovation, outer setting, inner setting, individuals, implementation process) and outcome domain incorporating implementation and innovation outcomes. The six themes identified within these CFIR domains were, respectively; i) Examining the dynamics of innovation catalysts, evidence, advantages, and disadvantages; ii) Navigating the complex landscape of external factors that influence implementation and evaluation; iii) Impact of internal structural, political, and cultural contexts; iv) The roles and contributions of individuals in the process; v) Essential phases and strategies for effective implementation; and vi) The assessment of outcomes derived from allied health professional role substitution models.

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights the complex interplay of contextual and individual factors that influence the implementation and performance evaluation of professional role substitution models. It emphasises the need for collaboration among diverse stakeholders to navigate the challenges and leverage the opportunities presented by expanded healthcare roles. Understanding these multifaceted factors can contribute to the development of an empowered workforce and a healthcare system that is more efficient, effective, safe, and sustainable, ultimately benefiting patients.

Online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

This cross-sectional study investigated the online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception up to May 2023. Cochrane reviews with any population (P), intervention or concept supported by any digital technology (I), any or no comparison (C), and any health outcome (O) were included. Data on review characteristics (bibliographic information, PICO, and evidence quality) and dissemination strategies were extracted and processed. Dissemination was assessed using review information on the Cochrane website and Altmetric data that trace the mentions of academic publications in nonacademic online channels. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 170 records identified in the search, 100 Cochrane reviews, published between 2005 and 2023, were included. The reviews focused on consumers (e.g. patients, n = 86), people of any age (n = 44), and clinical populations (n = 68). All reviews addressed interventions or concepts supported by digital technologies with any devices (n = 73), mobile devices (n = 17), or computers (n = 10). The outcomes focused on disease treatment (n = 56), health promotion and disease prevention (n = 27), or management of care delivery (n = 17). All reviews included 1-132 studies, and half included 1-10 studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 69 reviews, and certainty of evidence was rated as high or moderate for at least one outcome in 46 reviews. In agreement with the Cochrane guidelines, all reviews had a plain language summary (PLS) that was available in 3-14 languages. The reviews were disseminated (i.e. mentioned online) predominantly via X/Twitter (n = 99) and Facebook (n = 69). Overall, 51 reviews were mentioned in up to 25% and 49 reviews in 5% of all research outputs traced by Altmetric data. Dissemination (i.e. higher Altmetric scores) was associated with bibliographic review characteristics (i.e. earlier publication year and PLS available in more languages), but not with evidence quality (i.e. certainty of evidence rating, number of studies, or meta-analysis performed in review).

CONCLUSIONS

Online attention towards Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies is high. Dissemination is higher for older reviews and reviews with more PLS translations. Measures are required to improve dissemination of Cochrane reviews based on evidence quality.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/mpw8u/ ).

Analysis of the virtual healthcare model in Latin America: a systematic review of current challenges and barriers

Background

The virtual care model can be used in all aspects of healthcare, such as prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of most medical and surgical conditions. The objective of this study was to identify the current barriers to implementing and consolidating the virtual healthcare model, of "telemedicine", in Latin American countries.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted through four databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Virtual Health, including articles in Spanish, Portuguese, and English. A combination of Boolean operators was used with the terms "telemedicine", "telehealth", "telecare", "home care services", "remote care" and the name of each Latin American country. Articles published from January 2020 to January 2023 that reported on the barriers and challenges of using the virtual care model were included.

Results

Nineteen articles were included. Brazil (n=5) and Argentina (n=4) were the countries where there was the greatest interest to explore barriers to virtual care. The barriers identified were categorized into five main themes: (I) technological and technical issues; (II) absence of a physical examination; (III) patient's negative perceptions; (IV) negative perceptions among healthcare professionals; and (V) structural obstacles and those associated with the healthcare system. The main obstacles reported were connectivity problems, lack of a complete physical examination, issues of privacy, high risk of medical malpractice, and absence of local regulation.

Conclusions

The virtual care model is a safe and cost-effective alternative for the delivery of health services, with multiple benefits for patients and their families. The indication for the use of virtual care should be based on a risk model for patient prioritization. Likewise, the analysis of the main barriers and benefits is fundamental to consolidating this model of care and ensuring its expansion in the region.

Innovative Models of Care for Hospitals of the Future

New ways of providing acute care outside of traditional hospital building complexes, such as virtual care or hospital in the home, are becoming more common. Despite this, many hospitals are still conceived as "bricks and mortar" centralised constructions, and few health service infrastructure organisations meet intensively with consumers or clinicians prior to conceptualising hospital design. Our study sought to understand the needs and expectation of community members and healthcare providers, and co-design innovative models of acute care to inform development of a new metropolitan hospital in Australia. Our study used a three-step approach, consisting of academic and grey literature reviews; a demographic analysis of the hospital catchment population; and a series of 20 workshops and 6 supplementary interviews with community members and local healthcare providers. We found that care should be tailored to the healthcare needs and expectations of each consumer, with consumers cared for in the community where possible and safe. We propose an innovative model of care for hospitals of the future, consisting of fully integrated acute care underpinned by appropriate digital architecture to deliver care that is community focussed. It is vital that new hospitals build in sufficient adaptability to leverage future innovation and meet the needs of growing and changing communities.

Consumer and provider perceptions of the specialist unit model of care: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Specialist care units cater to targeted cohorts of patients, applying evidence-based practice to people with a specific condition (e.g., dementia) or meeting other specific criteria (e.g., children). This paper aimed to collate perceptions of local consumers and health providers around specialist care units, as a model of care that may be considered for a new local healthcare facility.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study using two-hour workshops and interviews to collect data. Participants were consumers and health providers in the planned facility's catchment: 49 suburbs in metropolitan Australia. Consumers and health providers were recruited through advertisements and emails. An initial survey collected demographic details. Consumers and health providers participated in separate two-hour workshops in which a scenario around the specialist unit model was presented and discussion on benefits, barriers and enablers of the model was led by researchers. Detailed notes were taken for analysis.

RESULTS

Five consumer workshops (n = 22 participants) and five health provider workshops (n = 42) were conducted. Participants were representative of this culturally diverse region. Factors identified by participants as relevant to the specialist unit model of care included: accessibility; a perceived narrow scope of practice; coordination with other services; resources and infrastructure; and awareness and expectations of the units. Some factors identified as risks or barriers when absent were identified as strengths and enablers when present by both groups of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive views of the model centred on the higher perceived quality of care received in the units. Negative views centred on a perceived narrow scope of care and lack of flexibility. Consumers hinted, and providers stated explicitly, that the model needed to be complemented by an integrated model of care model to enable continuity of care and easy transfer of patients into and out of the specialist unit.

"It's My Life and It's Now or Never"-Transplant Recipients Empowered From a Service-Dominant Logic Perspective

Patient well-being after an organ transplant is a major outcome determinant and survival of the graft is crucial. Before surgery, patients are already informed about how they can influence their prognosis, for example by adhering to treatment advice and remaining active. Overall, effective selfmanagement of health-related issues is a major factor in successful long-term graft survival. As such, organ transplant recipients can be considered as co-producers of their own health status. However, although keeping the graft in good condition is an important factor in the patient's well-being, it is not enough. To have a meaningful life after a solid organ transplant, patients can use their improved health status to once again enjoy time with family and friends, to travel and to return to work -in short to get back on track. Our assertion in this article is twofold. First, healthcare providers should look beyond medical support in enhancing long-term well-being. Second, organ recipients should see themselves as creators of their own well-being. To justify our argument, we use the theoretical perspective of service-dominant logic that states that patients are the true creators of real value-in-use. Or as Bon Jovi sings, "It's my life and it's now or never."

The diversity of providers' and consumers' views of virtual versus inpatient care provision: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

A broad-based international shift to virtual care models over recent years has accelerated following COVID-19. Although there are increasing numbers of studies and reviews, less is known about clinicians' and consumers' perspectives concerning virtual modes in contrast to inpatient modes of delivery.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study in late 2021 examining consumers' and providers' expectations of and perspectives on virtual care in the context of a new facility planned for the north-western suburbs of Sydney, Australia. Data were collected via a series of workshops, and a demographic survey. Recorded qualitative text data were analysed thematically, and surveys were analysed using SPSS v22.

RESULTS

Across 12 workshops, 33 consumers and 49 providers from varied backgrounds, ethnicities, language groups, age ranges and professions participated. Four advantages, strengths or benefits of virtual care reported were: patient factors and wellbeing, accessibility, better care and health outcomes, and additional health system benefits, while four disadvantages, weaknesses or risks of virtual care were: patient factors and wellbeing, accessibility, resources and infrastructure, and quality and safety of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual care was widely supported but the model is not suitable for all patients. Health and digital literacy and appropriate patient selection were key success criteria, as was patient choice. Key concerns included technology failures or limitations and that virtual models may be no more efficient than inpatient care models. Considering consumer and provider views and expectations prior to introducing virtual models of care may facilitate greater acceptance and uptake.